B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Or "We will make Billionaires pay for it" or "We will renationalise everything"?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter urban genie
- Start date
Or "We will make Billionaires pay for it" or "We will renationalise everything"?
That's not my understanding of populist. I see it more like a populist leader tends to promise simple solutions to complex problems via the use of catchy but ultimately meaningless slogans that don't tie them to one particular viewpoint or another in order to be popular and gain power. Invariably once they gain power they don't deliver and blame someone else like poor people or immigrants. Think 'Make America Great Again' or 'Get Brexit Done'.
"For the many not the few"
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 33,547
- Team supported
- Manchester City
That's not my understanding of populist. I see it more like a populist leader tends to promise simple solutions to complex problems via the use of catchy but ultimately meaningless slogans that don't tie them to one particular viewpoint or another in order to be popular and gain power. Invariably once they gain power they don't deliver and blame someone else like poor people or immigrants. Think 'Make America Great Again' or 'Get Brexit Done'.
Or offering free stuff like Labour did, the meaning of populist means against the elite, in this country in the last GE Boris ran a Brexit driven populist movement as did Corbyn, both sloganising but there was only one winner.
Hence the winners are called populist and the word is then used as a pejorative.
hilts
Well-Known Member
Or "We will make Billionaires pay for it" or "We will renationalise everything"?
Or we will spend 58 billion on old women which although not great on the equality front won’t actually cost anything coz it’s a one off innit comrade.
Its ironic isn't it?
Offering policies like “free WiFi for everyone” is Populist politics by definition.
Or offering free stuff like Labour did, the meaning of populist means against the elite, in this country in the last GE Boris ran a Brexit driven populist movement as did Corbyn, both sloganising but there was only one winner.
Hence the winners are called populist and the word is then used as a pejorative.
Like I said, it is my understanding.
Not sure who the elite are. I think that much of Johnsons lived experience places him into a fairly elite group.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 33,547
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Like I said, it is my understanding.
Not sure who the elite are. I think that much of Johnsons lived experience places him into a fairly elite group.
By your definition Boris isn't a populist but Corbyn is :O
Your first paragraph should tell why the second one isn’t very logical. If you bring the Labour Party to the centre a bit then you will still have the votes of those on the left because they don’t really have anywhere relevant to go. You cannot use the failure of the independent group in a fptp system as a reason for the Labour Party to become a bit less bonkers.
Labour's manifesto wasn't especially bonkers. There were very few complaints from the party centrists on its content. The disagreements were on how the message was put across and how undue attention was put on policies that didn't capture the public imagination. People are getting excited about Keir Starmer but his politics aren't a radical departure from those of Corbyn to be honest. He does seems to be winning people over across different sides of the party though. The landscape of politics in the country has changed and i'm not totally convinced there is that much of a centre ground anymore. If the party has ideas that can actually work that happen to be towards the centre, then i'm not ideologically opposed to them. But the party can't just ditch its underlying principles in pursuit of a this mythical centre ground that doesn't really seem to delivering votes.
Populist has just become a term people use to describe people who don't vote the same as you, in reality every government is a populist government, but regarded more so when ordinary people vote for them and their policies.
populist
noun
noun: populist; plural noun: populists
a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
That's actually very true. I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems a lot easier these days to appeal to people with soundbites and slogans rather than actually detailing policy.
I don't think Nandy is on the left of the party: I think she's pretty much in the centre but is consciously and sensibly lurching to the left in this leadership contest to win votes.
She's actually a good example that the party is more than just Blairites V Corbynites which is a blantantly false dichotomy created by supporters of those two factions.
I think the closest person to her in terms of politics was Ed Miliband. The idea that he lost because he was too right-wing is for-the-birds but he should serve as an example to her that policy alone doesn't win elections.
I think Nandy historically has been seen as on the left of the party. Don't forget, in 2015 Owen Jones was pleading with her to run for the leadership as the left wing candidate. She didn't because she'd just had a baby, but ironically, if she had have done that then Corbyn probably wouldn't have put himself forward. I think her cred was badly damaged on the left of the party when she threw her weight behind the Owen Smith challenge, but I think her politics remain to the left.
Labour's manifesto wasn't especially bonkers. There were very few complaints from the party centrists on its content. The disagreements were on how the message was put across and how undue attention was put on policies that didn't capture the public imagination. People are getting excited about Keir Starmer but his politics aren't a radical departure from those of Corbyn to be honest. He does seems to be winning people over across different sides of the party though. The landscape of politics in the country has changed and i'm not totally convinced there is that much of a centre ground anymore. If the party has ideas that can actually work that happen to be towards the centre, then i'm not ideologically opposed to them. But the party can't just ditch its underlying principles in pursuit of a this mythical centre ground that doesn't really seem to delivering votes.
The manifesto was absolutely fucking ludicrous.
Most centrists I know hated it.
Gareth Barry Conlon
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 15,934
The manifesto was absolutely fucking ludicrous.
Most centrists I know hated it.
Fully agree. Not the slightest hint of credibility in that manifesto. Any decent policy was lost in the noise. I almost suspect that was the intent. Create maximum noise to deflect from the fact that Corbyn was the candidate.
Fully agree. Not the slightest hint of credibility in that manifesto. Any decent policy was lost in the noise. I almost suspect that was the intent. Create maximum noise to deflect from the fact that Corbyn was the candidate.
There were some, as in 2017, decent policies in there but throwing them all in together screamed of bankruptcy.
The manifesto was absolutely fucking ludicrous.
Most centrists I know hated it.
Absolutely fucking ludicrous sounds a bit extreme? What didn't you like about it? I have a couple of friends who work for the party who I would say are definitely more centrist (and definitely couldn't stand Corbyn's leadership) and they didn't hate it, they just found that during the course of campaigning everybody hated Corbyn and some of the policies that were stealing the headlines (e.g. free broadband) were detracting from more important messages. But there didn't seem to be a huge ideological chasm across the party with respect to the content itself.
Fame Monster
Well-Known Member
I think Nandy historically has been seen as on the left of the party. Don't forget, in 2015 Owen Jones was pleading with her to run for the leadership as the left wing candidate. She didn't because she'd just had a baby, but ironically, if she had have done that then Corbyn probably wouldn't have put himself forward. I think her cred was badly damaged on the left of the party when she threw her weight behind the Owen Smith challenge, but I think her politics remain to the left.
Fair enough. I suppose we'll only ever really know if she becomes leader.
mexico1970
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2019
- Messages
- 33,547
- Team supported
- Manchester City
That's actually very true. I guess what I'm getting at is that it seems a lot easier these days to appeal to people with soundbites and slogans rather than actually detailing policy.
Sadly you're right bud, slogans instead of policies.
Absolutely fucking ludicrous sounds a bit extreme? What didn't you like about it? I have a couple of friends who work for the party who I would say are definitely more centrist (and definitely couldn't stand Corbyn's leadership) and they didn't hate it, they just found that during the course of campaigning everybody hated Corbyn and some of the policies that were stealing the headlines (e.g. free broadband) were detracting from more important messages. But there didn't seem to be a huge ideological chasm across the party with respect to the content itself.
It was just a wish list containing what they thought the working classes wanted. Which they spectacularly got wrong, as the public know full well you can’t grow money on trees. Free WiFi for all, WASPI women covered, nationalise several industries at once, building a new drugs company to service NHS, completely scrapping tuition fees (it’s as if the motion to lower the voting age was a tactic to offer this bribe) etc. etc.
Now free WiFi and WASPI pay out aside, I’m not principally against any of those policies individually, if it’s proven it will work/be beneficial, but together they present a massive outlay in spending and one in which most people, including the IFS, didn’t buy.
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 30,114
Doesn't she just bad mouth everybody?Phillips' problem is that she's made a name for herself by badmouthing Labour in the press and revelling too much in Corbyn's failings. She didn't strangely realise that validation from non-Labour supporters wouldn't translate into validation from large numbers of party members. She's bemoaning factionalism in the party when she has been one of the worst offenders.
Nandy and Starmer are both very much on the left of the party. They have shown glimpses of being able to pull members of both sides of the party which gives me some hope. Moving to the centre isn't some kind of magic bullet. Everyone talking about needing a new centrist party seems to be forgetting the way the independent group completely bombed, the failure of the lib dems to kick on and also the huge defeat suffered by Ed Miliband. It's ok to be on the left, they just need to present the ideas as being sensible rather than disruptive and radical.
kevin horlocks wand
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Mar 2016
- Messages
- 9,648
Doesn't she just bad mouth everybody?
I think she would be good fun on a night out
BlueAnorak
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 30,114
So long as she takes it as well as she gives it, you're probably right.I think she would be good fun on a night out